The Menshevik Tactical Platform

Written:Written during the second half of March 1907Published:Published in 1907 in the collectionQuestions of Tactics, First Issue.Novaya DumaPublishers, St. Petersburg. Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to the text in the collection.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 12,

      pages249-264.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

“TheTactical Platform for the Coming Congress, prepared by
Martov, Dan, Starover, Martynov and others, with the participation of a group of
Menshevik practicians” has been issued as a separate leaflet.

Therelation between this platform and the resolution on the State Duma, drawn
up by the same Menshevik leaders and published inRusskaya Zhizn, No.
47, is not yet known. The leaflet we are speaking of does not say a single word
as to whether it is proposed to work out in greater detail the tactical
opinions expressed in it, in the form of draft resolutions, precisely on which
questions, etc. This lack of clarity is regrettable because the “Tactical
Platform” itself is worded very diffusely and indefinitely. To show this we are
giving in full the last three theses of the platform; these outline the
“current tasks of Social-Democracy in the immediate future”; we
shall begin with the third thesis.

(3)The development of the independent political and organisational activities
    of the working-class masses on the basis of the defence of their interests
    as a class of wage-workers. Assistance by Party groups for the
    organisations that are being built up among wide sections of the
    proletariat on the basis of the struggle to satisfy their immediate trade,
    political and cultural needs, on the basis of struggle to retain and extend
    the concessions they have wrested from the old system.”

(3)The development of the independent political and organisational activities
    of the working-class masses on the basis of the defence of their interests
    as a class of wage-workers. Assistance by Party groups for the
    organisations that are being built up among wide sections of the
    proletariat on the basis of the struggle to satisfy their immediate trade,
    political and cultural needs, on the basis of struggle to retain and extend
    the concessions they have wrested from the old system.”

Couldyou possibly imagine anything more diffuse, vague and empty? Is this a
“tactical platform” for the 1907 congress, or is it an excerpt from
a popular article on the tasks of the working class in general?

Aswe know, the agenda for the congress includes items
on trades unions, a labour congress and councils of delegates—theseare all concrete questions of today, of the present stage of development of
the working-class movement. And we are treated to platitudes and empty
phrases about “independent activities”, as though there were a deliberate
desireto conceal their ideasconcerning the questions that have
been presented by reality and by the Party! This is not a platform,
comrades, buta pro forma statement.  There already exists
considerable Party literature on such questions as a labour congress,
ranging from articles in the Party’s official paperSotsial-Demokrat[6]to a number of pamphlets. A platform is
drawn up to provide an answer that is to the point, and not to evade the
issue.

“...(2)A determined ideological struggle against all attempts to limit
   the class independence of the proletariat, against inculcation of
   reactionary petty-bourgeois illusions in proletarian consciousness, and
   against all tendencies leading to the substitution of anarchic terror and
   adventurous plotting for the organised class struggle.”

“...(2)A determined ideological struggle against all attempts to limit
   the class independence of the proletariat, against inculcation of
   reactionary petty-bourgeois illusions in proletarian consciousness, and
   against all tendencies leading to the substitution of anarchic terror and
   adventurous plotting for the organised class struggle.”

Wrathfullyput. Clearly the authors wanted to give vent to their ire. That, of
course, is their right, and we would be the last to complain of sharpness in a
polemic. Polemise as trenchantly as you like; only say plainly what you
mean. Your second point, however, says absolutely nothing definite. It “is
aimed”, as one may guess, at the Bolsheviks, but itmisses the
markon account of its diffuse wording. All Bolsheviks would, of course,
agree to subscribe in full to the condemnation ofanarchicterror,
“adventurous plotting”, “reactionary petty-bourgeois
illusions” and “at tempts to limit class independence”.

Letus give the Menshevik comrades some good advice. If you want to engage in
sharper polemics with the Bolsheviks, comrades, and want to “wound”
them more seriously, then please compile resolutions that will beunacceptableto us. You mustopenall the parentheses and not
cast a new veil over questions presented long ago! Take an example from us: our
draft resolution on non-party political organisations saysoutrightthat we are againstcertain definiteproposals of Axelrod’s,
againstcertain definitetrends expressed in certain literary works by
members of the Party. Whatever you may blame us for in our draft resolution, it
will certainly not be for lack of clarity, or for avoiding thesubstanceof the dispute.

“...(1)The awakening of the political initiative of the proletarian masses by
the organisation of their planned intervention in political life in all its
manifestations.“Inpursuance of this, Social-Democracy, while calling on the proletariat
to support all progressive classes in their joint struggle against reaction,
rejects all lasting alliances with any part of the non-proletarian classes,
and, wherever sections of these classes differ among themselves, supports in
each individual case those actions that are in conformity with social
progress. Social-Democracy directs its revolutionary criticism both against the
counter-revolutionary strivings of the liberal bourgeoisie and against the
utopian and reactionary prejudices of agrarian petty-bourgeois socialism.”

“...(1)The awakening of the political initiative of the proletarian masses by
the organisation of their planned intervention in political life in all its
manifestations.

“Inpursuance of this, Social-Democracy, while calling on the proletariat
to support all progressive classes in their joint struggle against reaction,
rejects all lasting alliances with any part of the non-proletarian classes,
and, wherever sections of these classes differ among themselves, supports in
each individual case those actions that are in conformity with social
progress. Social-Democracy directs its revolutionary criticism both against the
counter-revolutionary strivings of the liberal bourgeoisie and against the
utopian and reactionary prejudices of agrarian petty-bourgeois socialism.”

Wedeliberately left this point until last, it alone, relatively speaking,
having some content, since ittoucheson the fundamental principles of
the differences between the Bolshevik and Menshevik tactics. But then, again, it
only “touches upon” them, again far too much padding and not enough
concrete material! The first two sentences are truisms that might well have been
discussed in the press in 1894-95, but it is really awkward to speak of such
things in 1907. And even these truisms are worded very carelessly, for instance,
Social-Democracy rejects all “alliances” in general with other
classes, and not only “lasting” ones.

Thethird sentence is the only one dealing with fundamentals of tactics. Only
here the veil is at least raised sufficiently to reveal the outlines of the
concrete phenomena of our times.

HereSocial-Democracy is contrasted to:

(1) the counter revolutionarystrivingsof the liberal bourgeoisie;

(2) the utopian and reactionaryprejudicesof agrarian petty-bourgeois
socialism. The instruction offered to the Party consists in criticism of them
bothin equal measure.

Letus examine these two comparisons and the significance of this instruction.

Itis not quite clear what the comrades mean by the “counter-revolutionary
strivings of theliberalbourgeoisie”. It would have been proper
to speak of the liberal bourgeoisie, without any further definition, in 1897
but not in 1907. The Menshevik comrades are astonishingly belated; we now have
politicalpartiesin Russia that have revealed themselves in the First
Duma, and partly in the Second! What sort of “tactical platform” is
this that stilldoes not even noticethese definite parties in Russia?

Itis difficult to believe that the Octobrists are referred to as liberal
      bourgeois. The comrades obviously have a party of theConstitutional-Democrattype in mind (the Party of Democratic
    Reform, perhaps the Party of Peaceful Renovation, as a phenomenon of the
    same type). We are convinced of this also by the use of the word
    “strivings”, because we do not see any strivings in the spirit
    of counter-revolution on the part of the Octobrists—their entire
    policy has now become counter-revolutionary.

Andso the matter is one of Cadetcounter-revolutionary
“strivings”, i.e., that the Cadets arealready
beginningto conductpracticalpolitics in acounter-revolutionaryspirit.

Thisfact is undoubtedly true. A frank and definite ad mission of it would
undoubtedly bring closer together the two now hostile trends in Russian
Social-Democracy. The need for a “revolutionary criticism’ of such
strivings is also beyond dispute.

Tocontinue. The reactionarystrivingsof the liberals are contrasted
with the reactionary“prejudicesof agrarian petty-bourgeois
socialism”.

Weare completely at a loss. How canclasses(liberal bourgeoisie) be
compared and contrasted withtheories(socialism), orpractical
politics(strivings) withviews(prejudices)?? This is illogical
in the highest degree. In atactical platform, if it is to hold
together, the contrasting should be of

(1) one class with another—for example, the liberal bourgeoisie with the
democratic (or reactionary?)  peasantry;

(2) one policy with another—for example, counter-revolutionary with
revolutionary;

(3) one set of theories, views and prejudices with another. This is so
absolutely obvious, so extremely elementary, that one cannot but wonder whether
this lack of logic in the Mensheviks is accidental, or whether lack of logical
clarity reflects unclear political thinking.

Itis beyond doubt that the “socialism” of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Trudoviks and the Popular Socialists is full of
utopian and
reactionary prejudices. This, of course, has to be said when these parties are
being assessed, as it was said by the Bolsheviks in their draft resolutions for
the Fourth and Fifth congresses. By repeating thisindubitable concept in such an illogical combination, the Mensheviks were
apparently seizing on the first argument that came their way, in order to
justify theirpolicyof support for the Cadets. Actually they could
not avoid giving a motive for this policy and attempting to justify it in the
text of the platform under examination. The liberal bourgeoisie’s
attitude to the peasantry in the Russian bourgeois revolution has now beentouched uponby the Mensheviks. This is great progress, of
course. After the experience of the First and (partly) the Second Duma, one can
no longer limit oneself to merely referring to the notorious “Black
Hundred danger” fiction as an argument in defence of election agreements
with the Constitutional-Democrats, voting for a Cadet chairman, and supporting
Cadet slogans. The general question, already presented by the Bolsheviks in the
pamphletTwo Tactics(July 1905)[1]must beraised— the
question of the attitude of the liberal bourgeoisie and the peasantry to the
Russian revolution. What is it that the Mensheviks now say, in substance, on
this question?

“Urbanbourgeois democrats in Russia have not subordinated the entire
economy to themselves and are, therefore, not capable of independent
revolutionary initiative, as was the case in bourgeois revolutions in previous
centuries; at the same time the peasantry, who constitute the overwhelming
majority of the small producers, are only just beginning to emerge from the
economic and social conditions of pre-bourgeois production, and are, therefore,
still less suited for the role of an independent leader of the revolution.”

“Urbanbourgeois democrats in Russia have not subordinated the entire
economy to themselves and are, therefore, not capable of independent
revolutionary initiative, as was the case in bourgeois revolutions in previous
centuries; at the same time the peasantry, who constitute the overwhelming
majority of the small producers, are only just beginning to emerge from the
economic and social conditions of pre-bourgeois production, and are, therefore,
still less suited for the role of an independent leader of the revolution.”

Thisis thesoleattempt to base the Menshevik policy towards the
liberals and the peasantry on aneconomic analysis! “The
peasantry arestill lesssuitable than the urban bourgeois
democrats..."—and these words “still less” are supposedto justifythe policy of supporting the Cadets.

Why“still less”? Because the peasantry “are only just beginning to
emerge from the economic and social conditions of pre-bourgeois
production”. A motive that is obviously unsatisfactory. If the peasantry
are “only just beginning to emerge” it is“the survivals
of the feudal system that are a heavy burden borne directly by the
peasantry”which prevent them from emerging. These words are from the
firstparagraph ofourParty’s agrarian programme. The circumstance
    that the heavy burden of the survivals of serfdom is borne directly by the
    peasants makes amore profound, extensive and acute revolutionary
    movement against the existing system necessary and inevitable among the
    peasantry than among the liberal bourgeoisie. There can be no question of
    either
    the liberal bourgeoisie or the peasantry being suitableleadersof
    the

			      revolution[2];

the relative ability of the liberals and the peasants to
    display “independent revolutionary initiative”, or, to be more
    exact, independently to participate in thefurther developmentof
    the revolution has been assessedquite incorrectlyby the
    Mensheviks.

TheMenshevik point of view on the political role of the peasantry contradicts
those basic postulates of our agrarian programme that are agreed upon by thewholeparty, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks alike.

First:as we have said “the survivals of the feudal system are a heavy
burden borne directly by the peasantry”. Consequently, in the present
bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, the peasantrymust bemore
revolutionary than the liberal bourgeoisie, because the strength, durability,
viability and acuteness of the revolutionary movement depend on the force of the
oppressive conditions of the old order, of that which has outlived itself.

Secondly:in our agrarian programme we demand “the confiscation of private
landed properties”. We do not demand anything of the sort, anything that
even remotelyapproximates such a radicaleconomicmeasure, for the liberal
bourgeoisie. Why? Because no objective conditions exist that would call forth a
struggle among the liberal bourgeoisie for theconfiscationof a very
considerable part of the property that is “legitimate” from the
standpoint of the old order. We allrecognisethe existence of these
objective conditions among the peasantry, because the Marxists do not demand
confiscation out of sheer love for ultra-revolutionary measures, but because
they are conscious of the hopeless position of the peasant masses. The
incomparably greater depth of the peasantry’s bourgeois-democratic
revolutionary spirit follows inevitably from this premise in our agrarian
programme.

Thirdly:our agrarian programme speaks of “support for the revolutionary
acts by the peasantry up to and including the confiscation of the landlords’
lands”. This is a clear recognition of the need for a definite attitude to
the direct revolutionary struggle of the peasants, to “acts” of a
mass character that cover a huge area and involve a tremendous section of the
country’s population. Nothing similar to theserevolutionary actsis to be found among theurbanbourgeoisie, not only among the
“liberal”, i.e., the middle and some of the big bourgeoisie, but
also among the democratic petty bourgeoisie. The Social-Democratic Labour Party
has never promised, and could never have promised, any “support” for
any sort of “confiscation” plans made by the urban bourgeoisie. From
this, it can be seen howerroneousis the usual Menshevik argument
about the “progressive urban” and “backward rural”
bourgeoisie, an argument that ishintedat in the platform under
review. The argument is based on a misunderstanding of our programme’s
fundamental ideas on the question of the struggle against the survivals of
serfdom, a struggle that constitutes the economic content of the bourgeois
revolution in Russia.

Fourthly:the political history of Russia for the past year, especially the
First Duma and the elections to the Second Duma, has shown clearly that the
peasantry, despite all their lack of development, their lack of unity, etc.,
were able to lay downimmediatelythe beginnings of the formation ofpoliticalparties (the “Trudovik” Group, etc.) that are
undoubtedlymore democraticthan the liberal-bourgeoisparties (the Constitutional-Democrats among them). This is borne out by a
comparison of the Constitutional-Democrats’ bill on the agrarian question
with that of the “104", or a comparison of the attitude of the Cadets
and the Trudoviks towards freedom of assembly and the composition of local
land committees, or a comparison of the Cadet press, which is calming the
people and quenching the revolutionary movement with the water of
constitutional phrases, and the Trudovik press (Izvestia Krestyanskikh

Deputatov,[7]etc.), which isrevolutionising, in the
democratic sense,fresh sectionsof the urban and rural petty
bourgeoisie.

Inshort, however we approach the question, it must be recognised that the
Mensheviks’ comparative assessment of the liberals and the Trudoviks isabsolutely wrong.

Thesource of this error is a failure to understand the bourgeois revolution
that is taking place in Russia’s agriculture. This revolution may have
two forms—either the retention of landed proprietorship by ridding it of
its feudal features and of the bondage of peasant labourers, or the abolition of
landed proprietorship through confiscation of that property and transfer of the
land to the peasants (in the form of nationalisation, division,
“municipalisation”, etc.,

				etc.).[3]

Abourgeois revolution in Russian agriculture is inevitable. And that
revolution will remain bourgeois (contrary to the teachings of the Narodniks)
even in the second case. However, the revolution may occur either in the first
or the second form, depending on whether the democratic revolution is victorious
or whether it remains unfinished— whether the peasant masses or the
liberal landlords and factory owners will decide the course and outcome of the
revolution.

Abourgeois revolution for the purpose of preserving landed proprietorship is
being carried out by Stolypin andthe liberals (the Constitutional-Democratic Party)—by Stolypin in the
crudest Asiatic forms that a well able to fan the flames of struggle in the
countryside and stimulate the revolution. The liberals are afraid of this and,
as they do not wish to risk everything, are in favour of concessions, but of
such concessions as wouldpreservelanded proprietorship; it is
sufficient to recall compensation for the land and, most important of all, the
formation of local laud committees from landlords and peasantsin equal
number, withagents of the governmentas chairmen! Local land
committees of such composition mean preservation of landlorddomination. Compensation payments for the land mean the strengthening
of the peasant bourgeoisie and the enslavement of the peasant proletariat. It is
this basic,economicsolidarity between the Stolypin agrarian reform
and that of the Cadets that the Mensheviks fail to understand.

Stolypinand the Cadets disagree onthe extentof the concessions and
on the method (crude or with finesse) of conducting the reform. Stolypin and the
Cadets are both for thereform, that is, they are for the preservation
of land lorddominationthroughconcessions to the peasants.

Theproletariat and the peasantry are for therevolution, for theabolitionnot only of landlord domination but ofalllanded
proprietorship.

Wecan put an end to the revolution by means of insignificant concessions made
by the landlords, says Stolypin.

Wecan put an end to the revolution only by means of more substantial
concessions made by the landlords, say the liberals (the Cadets included).

Wewant to carry the revolution through to the end, and abolish landed
proprietorship, say the peasants and workers.

Todeny that the agrarian programmes are thus related means to deny our own
agrarian programme, which speaks of “the confiscation of privately-owned
land” and “support for the revolutionary acts by the peasantry up to
and including the confiscation of the landlords’ lands”.

Torecognise this relationship is to recognise the tactical line of
Social-Democracy—the proletariat must carry the democratic peasantry with
it, against the autocracy and against the liberals.

Itis, therefore, no accident that the Mensheviks are wavering in all their
      tactics; they are inevitably doomed to vacillation as long as they
      recognise the present agrarian programme. Some of them would like to
      change the word “confiscation” for “alienation”,
      therebyquite consistentlyexpressing the next stage in
    opportunism, since they realise thenecessityto make their Cadet
    policy conform to the Cadet formulation of the agrarian programme.

This,however, has not yet taken place. It is something that influential
Menshevik leaders do not even risk pro posing in advance, openly and
directly. For them, vacillation in policy is the inevitable outcome.

Theyhave to conduct a policy of support for the Cadets, without daring to
announce it openly! Support for the demand for a “Duma ministry”,
and blocs with the Cadets on account of a fictitious Black-Hundred danger, and
voting for a Cadet chairman in the Duma—all these are only individual
manifestations of the policy of support for the Cadets, the policy of
subordinating the proletariat to the hegemony of the liberals.

Butthe Mensheviks do not risk defending this policy openly. And the false
position they occupy compels them, against their will and consciousness, to
“invent” fictitious arguments, such as the “Black-Hundred
danger” at the elections, or the fiction that a “Duma
ministry” is not a half-way pseudo-reform concealing an attempt at a deal
between the Black-Hundred camarilla and the Cadets, or that by taking our 60 or
70 votes away from Golovin (who obtained 356 against 102) we
“risked” sinking the Cadets, etc., etc.

Thisfalse position compels themto paintthe Cadetsin bright
colours. They avoid giving this party adirectcharacteristic in
accordance with its class composition and its classbacking. They avoid
an assessment of Russian bourgeois parties by the congress. Instead of
“liberal bourgeoisie” they speak of “urban bourgeois
democracy”.

Thisabsolutely incorrectdescription of the

				Cadets[4]is defended by one argument, very plausible at first sight—theelection statistics show it is from the big towns that the majority of
Cadet electors come. This argument is groundless: in the first place, the
elections to the Second Duma in the twenty-two big towns where,according to
Rech, there was a Left bloc gave the Cadets 74,000 votes and the Lefts
41,000. And so, despite the Lefts’ amazing weakness in legal propaganda (the
complete absence of a daily press, the complete absence of open offices, etc.),
the Trudoviks and Social-Democrats won more than a third of the votes from the
Cadets! Consequently the Constitutional-Democrats represent theupper
stratumof the urban bourgeoisie, i.e., the liberal bourgeoisie in
particular, and not urban“democrats”in general. Secondly:
for a
long time the liberal bourgeoisie of all countries carried with them numerous
elements from the lower strata of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, but
that did not by any means make them ademocraticparty, a party of themasses. The struggle between the socialists and the liberals fordemocraticleadership of the mass of the impoverished urban petty
bourgeoisie is a long and difficult one. To declare forthwith that the Cadets
are “urban democrats” isto rejectthat struggle, to reject
the cause ofthe proletariat, and to hand it over to the
liberals. Thirdly, to deny that the liberallandownersconstitute yet
another of theclass supportsof the Cadet Party means distorting
generally known political and economic facts—both the composition of the
Cadet group in the Duma and, especially, the close connection between the
bourgeois intelligentsia, lawyers, etc., and the landowners, and the dependence
of the former on the latter. The Cadet agrarian policyisthe policy of
the liberal landowner. The fewer the liberals among the landowners, the more
rapidly does the Cadet agrarian policy turn into the pious wishes for
“social peace” expressed by the impotent bourgeois intellectual. The
Cadets do notturn “democratic” by continuing to dream of conciliation and an
      amicable agreement between the Octobrist landowner and the Trudovik

			       peasant.[5]

Thefundamental error in determining the relations between the liberal
bourgeoisie and the peasantry runs like a scarlet thread through the entire
Menshevik “tactical platform”. Here is another of their
formulations of this erroneous idea:

“Theproletariat, left entirely to itself and insufficiently supported
[!!] by urban democrats, was inclined [after the October-December period] to
minimise the progressive role that, in general, falls to the lot of
those democrats in the present revolution, and, in conformity with this, adopted
a one-sided, hostile stand towards it.... In consequence of this incorrect
understanding by the proletariat of the historic role of the urban bourgeoisie,
the proletariat has begun one-sidedly to place all its revolutionary hopes on
the movement of the peasantry which is appearing on the stage of history.”

“Theproletariat, left entirely to itself and insufficiently supported
[!!] by urban democrats, was inclined [after the October-December period] to
minimise the progressive role that, in general, falls to the lot of
those democrats in the present revolution, and, in conformity with this, adopted
a one-sided, hostile stand towards it.... In consequence of this incorrect
understanding by the proletariat of the historic role of the urban bourgeoisie,
the proletariat has begun one-sidedly to place all its revolutionary hopes on
the movement of the peasantry which is appearing on the stage of history.”

Thisis a wonderful passage that deserves to go down in history as a description
of the “self-forgetfulness” of part of Russian Social-Democrats in
1907.

Thisis, in effect, an avowal of contrition made by Social-Democrats to the
liberals—neither more nor less! Just think of it—at the time of the
Second Duma, when there is a clearly expressed sharpening of political extremes
between the Black Hundreds and the Left wing of theDuma, when there is a revolutionary crisis, the maturing of which nobody will
risk denying, when there is an obvious swing to the Right of the weakened
liberal “Centre” (Cadets), when the liberals have been shouldered
aside by the democratic peasants at the elections—Social-Democrats are to
be found whopublicly repentto theliberalsof their
“one-sided hostility” to them, repent ofminimisingtheir
progressive role! What is this, eh? Is it a tactical platform, carefully thought
out and weighed prior to the congress by eminent leaders of the
Social-Democratic Labour Party, or the whining of petty-bourgeois intellectuals
who are getting nostalgic in the proletarian surroundings so uncongenial to
them?

“Theproletariat adopted a one-sided, hostile stand to wards urban
democracy....” What was this expressed in? Let us go over the
political events of the last year in our minds. In the boycott? But that was,
firstly, prior to the Unity Congress, and the authors of the platform are re
viewing events that followed it. And, secondly, what have “urban
democrats” to do with it? No, apparently the boycott is not meant. It
must be the question of support for the demand for a Duma ministry and of blocs
with the Cadets. Here, of course, theproletariatdisplayed a hostile
attitude towards theCadetsbut not by any means towards urban
democracy.

Andwho, within the Party, gave expression to this hostile attitude of theproletariat?The Bolsheviks....

Theauthors of the platform have accidentally told a great truth—in their
war against support for the “Duma” ministry demand and against blocs
with the Cadets, the Bolsheviks were expressing the policy of theproletariat. This is true. It is only the petty-bourgeois section of
the workers’ party that dreams of softening the hostile attitude to the
liberals.

Theproletariat is “insufficiently supported by urban democrats...”.

First:here the error in confusing the liberals (Cadets) with urban democracy
stands out with particular clarity. According toRechfigures, there
was a “Left election bloc” in twenty-two cities—these also
including Menshevik organisations. In these cities the proletariat was undoubtedlysupported to a considerable extent, byurban democrats, against
    the Cadets (41,000 votes for the Left bloc, 74,000 for the Cadets). The
    conclusion to be drawn from this is certainly not in favour of the
    Mensheviks; the proletariat can and must attract to its side urban (and
    rural) petty-bourgeois democrats, against the liberal bourgeoisie.

Secondly:when the Mensheviks speak ofinsufficientliberalsupportfor the proletariat, do they understand thevalueof
liberal support for the proletariat? Their platform is being written in 1907,
and not altogether outside of time and space, no matter how much they try to
give it the least concrete and most aerial character. Between 1902 and 1904 and
even 1905, until the month of October, both Mr. Struve and the liberals in
general frequently announced their support for the proletariat, and actually did
give their support in the onslaught on the autocracy.

Butafter October 1905? The Mensheviks cannot but know thatin December and
after Decemberthe liberals turned their backs on the proletariat and
ceased giving support to its revolutionary struggle.

Wemay well ask: By whom and towards whom was a one-sided hostility displayed?

Bythe proletariat towards the liberals?

Orby the liberals towards the proletariat and towards the revolution?

Orby the Mensheviks towards the tactics of the proletarian class struggle?

Whenthe Mensheviks go so far as to speak of “one-sided hostility”,
they are contraposing, as clearly as possible, two views on the Russian
revolution after October 1905. The liberal view—the view of the Russian
followers of those German

Treitschkes[8]who announced that 1848 was “a year of madness”—is
that the proletariat assumed a one-sided, hostile stand towards liberalism,
towards constitutional legality, towards the monarchist constitution,
towards compensation for the land, etc.

Theview of theproletariat—similar to the view of all European
socialists on European bourgeois revolutions—isthat the liberal bourgeoisie assumed a one-sided, hostile stand towards the
revolution, towards freedom, towards democracy, etc.

TheMensheviks are trying to divert the working-class party from the second view
to the first.

Theworking-class party will parry every such attempt on the part of the
Mensheviks by trying to divert the Mensheviks from the working-class party to
the liberals.

Wedo not by any means wish to say that the Mensheviks are, in general, trying
to turn the working-class party into an appendage to the liberals. The
difference between the opportunists inside the workers’ party and the liberals
outside its ranks is this: the former continue to serve their party sincerely
but in so doing adopt an unstable and incorrect tactical stand thatleadsto the political subordination of the proletariat to liberalism.

The“unfortunate” quality possessed by this stand is that the
Mensheviks, in their desire to attack the Bolsheviks, actually attack the
proletariat and the proletarian attitude to the revolution. This happens each
time the attacks of the Mensheviks are really grounded in principle, i.e., when
they deal with the reasons for the two different sets of tactics. Attacks that
are not grounded in principle are another matter; they have only to be briefly
mentioned for the reader to be confronted by the question: Is this a platform we
have before us or a polemical article by a liberal?

Weread in the “platform”, for example, that the “proletarian
masses [sic!] are inclined to believe in the forthcoming political
miracle of a sudden [!!] insurrection that will come about irrespective [!!] of
the internal development of the proletariat itself and with one blow [!!] will
replace the autocracy by the political rule of the working classes”.

Upto now only the liberal newspapers have attributedsuchthings insucha form to the “proletarian masses”. What made the
Mensheviks speak about an uprising at all,is something we cannot understand. But such talk of an uprising in a tactical
      platform that does not contain an other word about an uprising except the
      sentence quoted cannot but evoke the question: instead of “Menshevik
      platform”, should we not say hereafter “liberal platform”?

[1]See present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 15-140.—Ed.

[2]Generally speaking, we heartily welcome the fact that in their platform
the Mensheviks haveraisedthe question of the proletariat’s
role asthe leader, of the revolution. It is extremely desirable
that this question should be discussed at the congress and a resolution
adopt ed on it. The Mensheviks give a feeble explanation of the peasantry
being unsuitable as leader of the revolution. It is not because the
peasantry are only “just beginning to emerge” from serfdom, but because
the main conditions ofpetty production(in agriculture and
industry) compel the petty producerto vacillatebetween “order”
and “property” on the one hand, and the struggle against-the old order on
the other. In the same way, the Mensheviks have missed the main reason for
the liberal bourgeoisie being unreliable—fear of the proletariat, the
need to rely on the old order’s instruments of power to defend them
selves against the “encroachments of the proletariat”, as the Bolshevik
resolution says.—Lenin

[3]I draw readers’ attention in particular to the fact that I have
deliberately avoided touching on the disputed questions of the
Social-Democratic agrarian programme (division, nationalisation,
municipalisation), and have taken only that which has been formally adopted
by the Party Congress, arid which does not, in effect, give rise to
disputes or group divisions among Social-Democrats.—Lenin

[4]The platform under discussiondoes not sayoutright that the
Cadets are a party of urban bourgeois democrats, but this is the senseof the whole text and of all the conclusions. The “explanations” of the
Menshevik press are identical. What has remained unsaid in the platform
only stresses again and again how very essential it is to place before the
congress the question of the class content of the various bourgeois parties
and our attitude to them. There can he no consistent tactics unless this is
done.—Lenin

[5]It will be remembered that the Right-wing Cadets, Mr. Struve among
them, proposed electing the Octobrist Kapustin and the Trudovik Berezin
vice-chairmen of the Second Duma. I am ready to call this plan a
“masterly” manifestation of liberal “wit”. And this Is how matters
actually standobjectively: it is thehistoric missionof
the Cadet to reconcile the Octobrist landowner with the Trudovik
peasant. The Left-wing Cadets did not want a demonstration of this because
of their fear of the Lefts. This is, however, an indisputable fact. The
objective state of affairs makes it the historic mission of the Cadets to
put an end to the revolution through the reconciliation of the Octobrist
landowners and the Trudovik peasants. And vice versa—the Russian
revolution can remain uncompleted, not brought to its final stage, only if
it were found possible jointly “to satisfy” the basic economic interests
of both the Octobrist landlords and the Trudovik peasants.—Lenin

[6]Sotsial-Demokrat(Social-Democrat)— organ of
the Central Commit tee of the R.S.D.L.P. published illegally in St. Petersburg
from September 17 (30) to November 18 (December 1), 1906; only seven issues
appeared. The Editorial Board, elected at the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P., consisted entirely of Mensheviks (F. I. Dan, L. Martov,
A. S. Martynov, P. P. Maslov, and A. N. Potresov). In point of fact the
newspaper was the factional organ
of the Mensheviks.

[7]Izvestia Krestyanskikh Deputatov(Peasant Deputies’
News)—organ of the Trudovik Group in the First State Duma; appeared
daily in St. Petersburg in May 1906.

[8]Treitschke, Heinrich(1834-1896)—German
historian and journalist, ideologist and propagandist of Prussianism,
chauvinism, and
racism.